I am constantly amazed (and annoyed) when the Right claims that the US has been hijacked by the Left over the past few decades. This is utter nonsense - the actual evidence indicates that we've moved far, far to the Right.

Consider the case of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961), Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, and a Republican. Funny thing is, by today's standards, Ike would be a flaming liberal, to the Left of all recent serious contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Ike on Taxes First, a quick definition of earned income vs. capital gains.

Earned income is income made from a job.

Capital gains, in contrast, is money made from the appreciation in value of something one owns (assets such as stocks, property, art, ...), rather than money earned from a job.

Average folks gets most of their income from their jobs, and thus the tax rate on earned income is most important to them. Rich people get most of their income from the appreciation of assets, and thus the tax rate on capital gains is more important to them.

Earned Income Tax: Ike's Time vs. Our Time

The highest tax bracket on earned income today is 35%. During Ike's administration, the highest tax bracket was 92% in 1953, and 91% thereafter [1]. Yes, taxes on the Rich were almost three times higher under the Republican Eisenhower compared to our current President, or compared to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton!

Capital Gains Tax: Ike's Time vs. Our Time

It is considered to be almost the gospel today that capital gains should be taxed at a far lower rate than earned income. Today the maximum capital gains tax rate is a whopping 15% on assets that have been held for at least a year since purchase. This is why the middle class, who are dependant on earned income, effectively pay taxes at a higher rate than do the wealthy.

In Ike's day, capital gains were not treated differently from earned income, so the rich paid 91% tax on capital gains. From 91% to 15% - another reason why it's good to be rich!

Note that in 1955, in the middle of Ike's presidency, the typical (median) family paid less than 20% in all taxes [2]. By 2003, the total of all taxes paid by a typical family had more than doubled, to almost 40% of income.

So in Ike's day, the rich paid a lot of taxes, the middle-class paid a little taxes, and somehow it all worked out.

But Did Ike Want To Tax The Rich?

You might be curious as to whether Ike actually wanted such a high tax rate on the Rich, or was somehow forced into it by, say, a Democratically-controlled Congress. It turns out that when Ike ascended to the Presidency, both houses of Congress were indeed controlled by a single party - the Republican party. Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate - they could have done anything they wanted. And some in Congress did pressure Ike to roll back taxes on the rich, but he held the line, saying:

"We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

Ike on Defense Ike was one tough hombre, the toughest of the tough. As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he had led millions of troops to take back Europe from the Nazis, and he got the job done. An astonishing feat, an honest "Mission Accomplished". Ike was President during the early part of the Cold War - a war where our opponent had actual weapons of mass destruction pointed at us. Let's see some of the things that Ike had to say about war, the millitary, and... Halliburton. Would Ike's views be considered to be Liberal or Right-wing today?

On the millitary in general "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense."

On the Iraq War "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

On Halliburton "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Ike on the Labor Movement We'll let Ike speak for himself on this one:

"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."

" . . . Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers, and . . . a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

and while we're at it:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Ike and Socialized Medicine

In 1960 Eisenhower signed into law the Kerr-Mills Bill, generally considered to be the forerunner of Medicare. For the first time, Kerr-Mills provided for government payment of medical bills of 70% of citizens aged 65 and older. When was the last time you heard of even a Democrat suggesting an expansion of socialized medicine?

Ike And Unilateralism Eisenhower knew the value of working closely with allies, and specifically of working out problems peaceully through the UN. While the Right would have you believe that the UN is some sort of recent liberal plot to displace the US, the reality is that the UN grew out of the alliance of 26 nations forged to fight the axis powers in WWII. Eisenhower was, in effect, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe for the United Nations. For example, when President Truman announced the surrender of Germany he said General Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to the United Nations.

Here, again, are Eisenhower's own words:

"The world must learn to work together, or finally it will not work at all."

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order. "

"The people of the world genuinely want peace. Some day the leaders of the world are going to have to give in and give, it to them."

Ike appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court. He had the highest tax rates ever on capital gains and earned income. He integrated the schools. He proposed the largest public works project since the CCC (interstate highway system). He believed in welfare. He opposed the "military industrial complex." Yet, he is also remembered for being a pretty good president...I am posting this because Ike reminds me a lot of John McCain

On the scheme of things, McCain is much more of a small government conservative than either Bush. McCain has serious issues on global warming and immigration, but McCain will be vastly better than either Democrat on 80% of the issues. I am disappointed that McCain is the nominee, but we could have done worse.

3
posted on 02/08/2008 7:19:20 AM PST
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

A little unfair to Ike. Supply side theory hadn’t been developed at that point. There was a huge debt from World War II and an ongoing war in Korea. Not a great time to lower taxes if you don’t understand supply side theory . . . which they didn’t in those days. That said, the writer is right in that we conservatives know a lot more than we did then and it doesn’t take a genius (which Ike just might have been actually) to see that a 90% tax rate is too darn high.

4
posted on 02/08/2008 7:21:47 AM PST
by Greg F
(A vote for Huckabee is now a pure vote for a contested convention. Think about it.)

Ike appointed Earl Warren because he thought he was a conservative. He was very disappointed with Warren’s turn to the left. He integrated the schools because he did not want to defy the Supreme Court. He warned about the military industrial complex, yes... But that sounds like Ron Paul, not John McCain.

That’s misleading because there were a whole lot more deductions even for the rich in those days. No one paid 92% of their income in taxes. The tax burden is much higher today than it was then, particularly when you consider the state and local taxes. Today, the government eats a much bigger share of our incomes, and it still runs a huge deficit. Eisenhower would be aghast.

I hope you’re not telling us that John McCain is going to resurrect the old welfare system.

To: meandog He was a Keynsian (growth is bad) and could have just as easily ran as a Democrat

He nearly did...he was courted by both political parties and was swinging towards the Dems. He probably chose the GOP because of Truman's unpopularity at the time and because Doug McArthur, his old boss who he despised, was a dedicated Republican and entertaining a run himself from Wisconsin--Ike would have loved nothing better than to bested him in his own party.

13
posted on 02/08/2008 7:29:05 AM PST
by meandog
(Please pray for future President McCain--day minus 327 and counting! Stay home and get Hillary!)

So, your rationale is that because Ike was a liberal in office and McCain is alot like Ike, that we conservatives should suck it up and wear our "I like McCain" campaign buttons?

Nope! The country enjoyed its greatest economic expansion (post WW-II had a lot to do with it) after Ike and, despite three recessions, most people who remember the time will tell you that they had it pretty good under Ike...of course, the culture was vastly different.

16
posted on 02/08/2008 7:31:55 AM PST
by meandog
(Please pray for future President McCain--day minus 327 and counting! Stay home and get Hillary!)

A lot of people are upset and disappointed. However, the real question is not that we could have done worse, could we have not done better????

If McCain wins, perhaps the answer is no. I think McCain can beat Hillary, not so sure about Obama. Even though Hunter/Thompson/Romney campaigned as more conservative candidates, I am not sure any of them had what it takes to win. Elections are won by keeping the base and winning the middle. McCain has the best chance of doing that.

17
posted on 02/08/2008 7:32:45 AM PST
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

Average folks gets most of their income from their jobs, and thus the tax rate on earned income is most important to them. Rich people get most of their income from the appreciation of assets, and thus the tax rate on capital gains is more important to them.

There's a point in some articles where the author is so wrong that you quit reading. This is it.

“the actual evidence indicates that we’ve moved far, far to the Right.”

Overall? Are you kidding? Just from my childhood, regulations have gotten that much worse. I was allowed to ride my bike with no “protection”, ride in a truck bed, ride anywhere in a car without a seat belt (including standing up through the moonroof). My child will not be officially allowed to do those things.

It is LIBERALS who LOVE regulation, and thus, with all the increases in regulation, I can only conclude we’ve moved TO THE LEFT.

“Average folks gets most of their income from their jobs, and thus the tax rate on earned income is most important to them. Rich people get most of their income from the appreciation of assets, and thus the tax rate on capital gains is more important to them.”

Actually, my working definition of a neoconservative is someone who voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980.

They're essentially those who finally realized in the late 1960s that liberalism in the United States no longer even resembled the liberalism which was the philosophical basis of the founding of the United States.

It still took well over 100 years for anyone to connect the free market dots explicitely and come to the common sense conclusion that at some point reducing taxes can increase revenue. Everyone should have seen it . . . it’s obvious in retrospect.

42
posted on 02/08/2008 7:53:54 AM PST
by Greg F
(A vote for Huckabee is now a pure vote for a contested convention. Think about it.)

On June 17, 1954, Eisenhower launched Operation Wetback in response to increasing illegal immigration to the United States. As many as three million illegal immigrants had crossed the U.S. Mexican border to work in California, Arizona, Texas and other states. Eisenhower opposed this movement, believing that it lowered the wages of American workers and led to corruption. The Immigration and Naturalization Service sent back to Mexico about 80,000 immigrants.

44
posted on 02/08/2008 7:54:33 AM PST
by Preachin'
(I stand with many voters who will never vote for a pro abortion candidate.)

Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex may have come from his close acquantance with the arrogant MacArthur who used military troops to attack American veterans at Washington D.C. in 1932 (see Bonus Army.) In regard to veterans in general, Eisenhower had reservations about MacArthur's act which barely skirted the Posse Comitatus Act.

Also, we know that Armistice Day was changed to Veteran's Day by Eisenhower after he became President. It seems likely that Eisenhower had a high regard for veterans.

45
posted on 02/08/2008 7:54:34 AM PST
by Muleteam1
(To all Dems I say, bring on the broken glass.)

"The world must learn to work together, or finally it will not work at all."

Clearly, this statement of hope and warning has not been heeded. The UN General assembly is a polyglot of tin-pot dictators , radical islamists, and nations who hate the US simply because they are threatened by the freedoms we represent.

That said, don't you suppose that if President Eisenhower was alive today he might have seen things differently.

Most of us are appalled at the fraud, waste and abuse of power in Washington DC and are trying within our means to do something about it.

Remember the power equation: The Power equation: People who have power will not let go of it; people who want power will do most anything to get it This leaves us with the state of affairs we have today.

In the context of the past, we have to live with the choices and policies made in post Eisenhower history. When Johnson unexpectedly became president, he came with a lot of "baggage" He was a manipulative man with a "big government" bent. This resulted, over time, in the migration of the Republicans to the right as a counterbalance. Should this have happened? One can speculate about other scenarios, but what we have is what we have.

I suspect things are going to get a lot worse regardless of who is inaugurated in January.

Is Senator McCain the answer? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

50
posted on 02/08/2008 7:58:01 AM PST
by oneolcop
(Take off the gloves!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.